a study of bible-第9节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ases。　It　is　one　of　the　interesting　incidents　that　this　same　Hugh　Broughton；　who　was　left　off　the　committee　and　took　it　so　hard；　yet　without　his　will　contributed　some　important　matter　to　the　translation；　because　he　had　on　his　own　authority　made　translations　of　certain　parts　of　the　Scripture。　Several　of　our　capital　phrases　in　the　King　James　version　are　from　him。　There　was　no　effort　to　break　out　new　paths。　Preference　was　always　given　to　a　familiar　phrase　rather　than　to　a　new　one；　unless　accuracy　required　it。　First；　then；　they　had　the　benefit　of　all　the　work　that　had　been　done　before　in　the　same　line；　and　gladly　used　it。

In　addition；　they　had　all　other　versions　made　in　the　tongues　of　the　time。　Chiefly　there　was　Luther's　German　Bible；　already　become　for　the　German　tongue　what　their　version　was　destined　to　be　for　the　English　tongue。　There　were　parts　of　the　Bible　available　in　Spanish；　French；　and　Dutch。　They　were　kept　at　hand　constantly　for　any　light　they　might　cast　on　difficult　passages。

For　the　Old　Testament　there　were　very　few　Hebrew　texts。　There　had　been　little　critical　work　yet　done　on　them；　and　for　the　most　part　there　were　only　different　editions　running　back　over　the　centuries。　We　have　little　more　than　that　now；　and　there　is　almost　no　new　material　on　the　Old　Testament　since　the　days　of　the　King　James　translators。　There　was；　of　course；　the　Septuagint；　the　Greek　translation　from　the　Hebrew　made　before　Christ；　with　the　guidance　it　could　give　in　doubtful　places　on　the　probable　original。　And　finally　there　was　the　Vulgate；　made　into　Latin　out　of　the　Greek　and　Hebrew。　This　was　all　the　Old　Testament　material　they　had；　or　that　any　one　could　have　in　view　of　the　antiquated　original　sources。

The　New　Testament　material　was　more　abundant；　though　not　nearly　so　abundant　as　to…day。　There　were　few　manuscripts　of　the　early　days　to　which　they　could　refer；　but　there　were　the　two　great　critical　versions　of　the　New　Testament　in　Greek；　that　by　Erasmus　and　the　Complutensian；　which　had　made　use　of　the　best　manuscripts　known。　Then；　finally　again；　there　was　the　Vulgate。

We　must　stop　a　moment　to　see　what　was　the　value　of　the　Vulgate　in　this　work。　It　is　impossible　to　reckon　the　number　of　the　early　New　Testament　manuscripts　that　have　been　lost。　In　the　earlier　day　the　Scriptures　were　transmitted　from　church　to　church；　and　from　age　to　age；　by　manuscripts。　Many　of　them　were　made　as　direct　copies　of　other　manuscripts；　but　many　were　made　by　scribes　to　whom　the　manuscripts　were　read　as　they　wrote；　so　that　there　are　many；　though　ordinarily　comparatively　slight；　variations　among　the　manuscripts　which　we　now　know。　More　manuscripts　are　coming　to　light　constantly；　manuscripts　once　well　known　and　then　lost。　Many　of　them；　perhaps　many　earlier　than　we　now　have；　must　have　been　familiar　to　Jerome　four　hundred　years　after　Christ。　When；　therefore；　there　is　a　plain　difference　between　the　Vulgate　and　our　early　Greek　manuscripts；　the　Vulgate　may　be　wrong　because　it　is　only　a　translation；　but　it　may　be　right　because　it　is　a　translation　of　earlier　manuscripts　than　some　of　ours。　It　is　steadily　losing　its　value　at　that　point；　for　Greek　manuscripts　are　all　the　time　coming　to　light　which　run　farther　back。　But　we　must　not　minimize　the　value　of　the　Vulgate　for　our　King　James　translation。

With　all　this　material　the　scholars　of　the　early　seventeenth　century　set　to　work。　Each　man　in　the　group　made　the　translation　that　seemed　best　to　him；　and　together　they　analyzed　the　results　and　finally　agreed　on　the　best。　They　hunted　the　other　versions　to　see　if　it　had　been　better　done　elsewhere。　The　shade　of　Tindale　was　over　it　all。　The　Genevan　version　was　most　influential。　The　Douai　had　its　share；　and　the　Bishops'　was　the　general　standard；　altered　only　when　accuracy　required　it。　On　all　hard　passages　they　called　to　their　aid　the　appropriate　departments　of　both　universities。　All　scholars　everywhere　were　asked　to　send　in　any　contributions；　to　correct　or　criticize　as　they　would。　Public　announcement　of　the　work　was　made；　and　all　possible　help　was　besought　and　gladly　accepted。

Very　faithfully　these　greatest　scholars　of　their　time　wrought。　No　one　worked　for　money；　and　no　one　worked　for　pay；　but　each　for　the　joy　of　the　working。　Three　years　they　spent　on　the　original　work；　three　years　on　careful　revision　and　on　the　marginal　references　by　which　Scripture　was　made　to　throw　light　on　Scripture。　Then　in　six　months　a　committee　reviewed　it　all；　put　it　through　the　press；　and　at　last；　in　1611；　with　the　imprint　of　Robert　Barker；　Printer　to　the　King's　Most　Excellent　Majesty；　the　King　James　version　appeared。　The　name　Authorized　Version　is　not　a　happy　one；　for　so　far　as　the　records　go　it　was　never　authorized　either　by　the　King　or　the　bishop；　and；　even　if　it　were；　the　authority　does　not　extend　beyond　the　English　Church；　which　is　a　very　small　fraction　of　those　who　use　it。　On　the　title…page　of　the　original　version；　as　on　so　many　since；　is　the　familiar　line；　〃Appointed　to　be　Read　in　Churches；〃　but　who　made　the　appointment　history　does　not　say。

The　version　did　not　at　once　supersede　the　Genevan　and　the　Bishops'；　but　it　was　so　incomparably　better　than　either　that　gradually　they　disappeared；　and　by　sheer　excellence　it　took　the　field；　and　it　holds　the　field　to…day　in　spite　of　the　numerous　supposedly　improved　versions　that　have　appeared　under　private　auspices。　It　holds　the　field；　also；　in　spite　of　the　excellent　revised　version　of　1881　made　by　authority；　and　the　more　excellent　version　issued　in　1901　by　the　American　Revision　Committee；　to…day　undoubtedly　the　best　version　in　existence；　considered　simply　as　a　reproduction　of　the　sense　of　the　original。　And　for　reasons　that　may　later　appear；　the　King　James　version　bids　fair　to　hold　the　field　for　many　years　to　come。

When　we　turn　from　the　history　of　its　making　to　the　work　itself；　there　is　much　to　say。　We　may　well　narrow　our　thought　for　the　remainder　of　the　study　to　its　traits　as　a　version　of　the　Bible。

I。　Name　this　first；　that　it　is　an　honest　version。　That　is；　it　has　no　argumentative　purpose。　It　is　not；　as　the　scholars　say；　apologetic。　It　is　simply　an　out…and…out　version　of　the　Scripture；　as　honestly　as　they　could　reproduce　it。　There　were　Puritans　on　the　committee；　there　were　extreme　High　Churchmen；　there　were　men　of　all　grades　between。　But　there　is　nowhere　any　evidence　that　any　one　was　set　on　making　the　Bible　prove　his　point。　There　were　strong　anti…papal　believers　among　them；　but　they　made　free　use　of　the　Douai　version；　and；　of　course；　of　the　Vulgate。　They　knew　the　feeling　that　Hugh　Broughton　had　toward　them；　but　they　made　generous　use　of　all　that　was　good　in　his　work。　They　were　working　under　a　royal　warrant；　and　their　dedication　to　King　James；　with　its　absurd　and　fulsome　flattery；　shows　what　they　were　capable　of　when　they　thought　of　the　King。　But　there　is　no　twist　of　a　text　to　make　it　serve　the　purposes　of　royalty。　They　might　be　servile　when　they　thought　of　King　James；　but　there　was　not　a　touch　of　servility　in　them　when　they　thought　of　the　Scripture　itself。　They　were　under　instruction　not　to　abandon　the　use　of　ecclesiastical　terms。　For　instance；　they　were　not　to　put　〃congregation〃　in　place　of　〃church；〃　as　some　Puritans　wanted　to　do。　Some　thought　that　was　meant　to　insure　a　High　Church　version；　but　the　translators　did　not　understand　it　so　for　a　moment。　They　understood　it　only　to　safeguard　them　against　making　a　partisan　version　on　either　side；　and　to　help　them　to　make　a　version　which　the　people　could　read　understandingly　at　once。　It　was　not　to　be　a　Puritan　Book　nor　a　High　Church　Book。　It　was　to　be　an　honest　version　of　the　Bible；　no　matter　whose　side　it　sustained。

Now；　if　any　one　thinks　that　is　easy；　or　only　a　matter　of　course；　he　plainly　shows　that　he　has　never　been　a　theologian　or　a　scholar　in　a　contested　field。　Ask　any　lawyer　whether　it　is　easy　to　handle　his　authorities　with　entire　impartiality；　whether　it　is　a　matter　of　course　that　he　will　let　them　say　just　what　they　meant　to　say　when　his　case　is　involved。　Of　course；　he　will　seek　to　do　it　as　an　honest　lawyer；　but　equally；　of　course；　he　will　have　to　keep　close　watch　on　himself　or　he　will　fail　in　doing　it。　Ask　any　historian　whether　it　is　easy　to　handle　the　original　documents　in　a　field　in　which　he　has　firm　and　announced　opinions；　and　to　let　those　documents　speak　exactly　what　they　mean　to　say；　whether　they　support　him　or　not。　The　greater　historians　will　always　do　it；　but　they　will　sometimes　do　it　with　a　bit　of　a　wrench。

Even　a　scholar　is　human；　and　these　men　sitting　in　their　six　companies　would　all　have　to　meet　this　Book　afterward；　would　have　their　opinions　tried　by　it。　There　must　have　been　times　when　some　of　them　would　be　inclined　to　salt　the　mine　a　little；　to　see　that　it　would　yield　what　they　would　want　it　to　yield　later。　So　far　as　these　men　were　able　to　do　it；　they　made　it　say　in　English　just　what　it　said　in　Hebrew　and　Greek。　They　showed　no　inclination　to　use　it　as　a　weapon　in　their　personal　warfare。

One　line　of　that　honest　effort　is　worth　observing　more　closely。　When　points　were　open　to　fair　discussion；　and　scholarship　had　not　settled　them；　they　were　careful　not　to　let　their　version　take　sides　when　it　could　be　avoided。　On　some　mooted　words　they　did　not　try　translation；　but　transliteration　instead。　That　is；　they　br